La reconnaissance des acquis et des compétences, une transdiscipline ?1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La validation sociale des savoirs issus de la pratique par la reconnaissance des acquis et des compétences (RAC) crée une situation où la disciplinarité constitue un problème. La RAC se doit d’être centrée sur le plan disciplinaire si elle veut remplir son rôle, notamment par l’émission de diplômes. Pourtant, c’est cette même centration qui constitue l’un de ses principaux obstacles dans le contexte de plus en plus complexe dans lequel elle doit opérer. C’est en ce sens que nous proposons une posture transdisciplinaire pour la reconnaissance universitaire des acquis extrascolaires. Le projet est d’aborder une réalité complexe et systémique impliquant divers niveaux de réalité qui se traduisent par la mise en dialogue de ces niveaux. Il en découle une vision nuancée où les différents acteurs se trouvent, chacun à sa manière, confrontés aux diverses dimensions de la reconnaissance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".